₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: With due respect to Lord Reed, the op, I do not want to derail your thread into religious arguments. But MacDaddy is like a dog in heat when anyone questions atheism, so I beg to be excused if he decides to start a firestorm over the comments I make. Also, permit me to advise you, @Lord Reed, to excuse or ignore discussions that you feel derail your thread and go on picking the information you seek out of the cacophony of opinions. It will help your peace of mind, I guarantee.

Lol....a dog on heat you say? When you and your ilk have classified atheists as immoral, fools and devil-worshippers? Anyway, lets move on.

Ihedinobi: MacDaddy, to avoid difficulty in understanding, I will ask you a few questions. I also offer to explain my questions as far as reasonable wherever you have problems understanding them. Here they are:

1. Does the green statement follow from the blue? If yes, how? Please pay particular attention to the underlined word in the green.

2. Can you reconcile the green statement with the red?

3. What do you think the bolded words in the green statement mean?

I am partially colour blind. Thanks for using green.


Nice try to Anonyize my comments but lets keep it simple


1) Morality (especially absolute morality)and common sense are not the same thing. It was moral to keep slaves over 80% of christianity's history (1700 out of 2012 years)

2) Secular countries have only practicality, effectiveness and commonsense to guide their laws.

3) We both speak English. Homie please!

[quote author=Lord_Reed]No you did not. You spoke about Sweden and I asked for an example from there, you did not do this.[/quote]How is abortion treated in Sweden, Mr Denial? Hmm?


Furthermore, this is why I answered you question with "Sweden"-- You were asking for a justice system and I cam of with the Swedish Justice system which is quite secular.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.[/quote]

MacDaddy01: Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

Frosbel, you are the real enigma! Sometimes, I hate you and sometimes I love you (no homo).


I love this thread because you said this;

frosbel: This fallacy involves appealing “to the people” rather than to reason. Assent to a conclusion is won not by giving valid arguments, but by arousing the feelings and sentiments of the multitude. In modern life, the propagandist, the demagogue, the politician and the advertiser continually make this appeal. If “everyone believes it,” or “everyone is doing it,” or the poll numbers are high, it must be right. It is an established fact of history, however, that popular ideas have often been proven to be erroneous. This has happened so often that it has been dramatically demonstrated that because the multitudes accept an assertion to be true, this provides no rational assurance that it is true.

One could argue that history teaches that the opposite is more often the case: if the multitudes believe something to be true, it is probably false. But arguing this way is just the flip side of the same fallacy. The number of people believing a particular proposition is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the proposition itself. Its truth or falsehood must be determined by relevant and rational means, employing evidence and information from which a conclusion can be logically derived.

The popularity of the Ad Populum fallacy is attributable to the tendency of human beings to act like sheep, flocking together around the comfortable and the familiar. Deep within the fallen human soul is the need to be connected with others of his kind, and so compelling is this desire that people will often surrender their conscience and judgment to the tyranny of their culture and the conventional wisdom, even when it makes no sense to them. How few there are who can stand in the integrity of their own mind and judgment when it is unpopular

Now lets review Frosbel's hypocrisy

-Christianity is the most followed religion in the world (close to 1/3rd of the whole world)
-Frosbel is a christian and therefore in the majority of the world (also the majority in religion followed in Nigeria)

Does this make Frosbel wrong? No, not yet but he is one foot in the grave


Should Frosbel answer "yes" to any of these questions or issues then he is a hypocrite because he is following what mosts christians say and not what the facts tell us



a) Should atheists be stopped from putting up their signboard because it offends the majority who are christians?
(note that christian signboards that offend atheists (eg God is real, belief in God is patriotic in USA) are protected by free speech.

https://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/billboard-are-you-good-without-god.png


[img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdc9qCtiYJFyh1D7UjLXmEAXidqTCzLuJcjfVFLuYthFD8OeI2q2Ahd36A[/img]






b) Should gay rights in America and Nigeria be stopped because the majority of christians dont support gay marriage?
(Note that gay rights do not derail a country's morality. The top peaceful and advanced countries have gay rights)

https://rlv.zcache.com/support_gay_rights_button-p145548391249542511en8go_400.jpg





c) Should creationism/intelligent design be kept in science classes as an alternative to evolution in America?
(note that evolution is the science. IE or creationism has no credibility or theories in science)





Answer the questions Frosbel

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Dude you do not need to insult me as I did not insult you.

I opened this thread to pick the brains of atheists, I do not want any arguments on religion is that too hard for your mind to comprehend?

I asked a question and asked you for example and you started comparing religious stuff. Stay with the topic is a simple enough request.

If you want to be pissed off do so and stay off.[/quote]Did I not give you a clear example? Yes or no?

haibe: @mac daddy and wiegraf i have some questions for you

Basic world view questions:
1. Origins: Where did life and humanity originate?

2. The Problem: Why is there suffering, sickness, and death?

3. The Solution: What is the cure for man’s suffering, esp. his existential lonliness?


Questions of Meaning and Value:
4. How does an atheist assign meaning to human activity? Is all meaning subjective,
or do some activities have self-evident and objective worth and meaning. If so, what
are these activities, and how to you arrive at their value?

5. Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?

6. How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there
any objective standard or principles?

Questions of Worldview:

7. What type of government does atheistic philosophy translate into? How does it
understand the relationship between man and government? What type of government
structures flow from an atheistic world view? Does it merely rely on someone else’s
system of thought, like the assumptions of naturalistic science?

8. How does atheism view religions and religious faith?
What about metaphysics? Is
atheism purely materialistic and naturalistic?

9. Who are the authoritative writers/books of atheism? What are the central tenets of
atheism, and if they have a “greatest commandment,” what is it? For example,
arguably, Christianity’s is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind,
soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

Questions of Revelation:
Where will you go after you die

1) big bang, evolution. read up on those topics
2)there is sufeering because of both natural and human reasons. Nature is not perfect and man causes many problems for himself.
3) solution- common sense and using science/technology to communicate and share resources to reduce suffering
4) humans are the ones to put meanings to their activities. Activities are subjective. we discuss and agree on values.
5) Humans are animals. We just have higher reasoning capcities

6)

MacDaddy01: Atheists base their "morality" generally on 4 prinicples;

-practicality
-effectiveness
-logic
-balance of the greater good (pros and cons)

7)Secular government. Iceland and Denmark, the two top peaceful countries in the world. Religion, not important.

Atheism sees religion/faith as not based on reality since atheism is based on evidence. Atheism is very materialistic as life is actually materialistic/naturalistic

9)Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a stance on the existence of God. However, atheists have different perspectives among themseleves but they must be based on evidence

haibe: @mac daddy and wiegraf i have some questions for you

Basic world view questions:
1. Origins: Where did life and humanity originate?

2. The Problem: Why is there suffering, sickness, and death?

3. The Solution: What is the cure for man’s suffering, esp. his existential lonliness?


Questions of Meaning and Value:
4. How does an atheist assign meaning to human activity? Is all meaning subjective,
or do some activities have self-evident and objective worth and meaning. If so, what
are these activities, and how to you arrive at their value?

5. Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?

6. How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there
any objective standard or principles?

Questions of Worldview:

7. What type of government does atheistic philosophy translate into? How does it
understand the relationship between man and government? What type of government
structures flow from an atheistic world view? Does it merely rely on someone else’s
system of thought, like the assumptions of naturalistic science?

8. How does atheism view religions and religious faith?
What about metaphysics? Is
atheism purely materialistic and naturalistic?

9. Who are the authoritative writers/books of atheism? What are the central tenets of
atheism, and if they have a “greatest commandment,” what is it? For example,
arguably, Christianity’s is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind,
soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

Questions of Revelation:
Where will you go after you die

Yawn. All these questions have been answered in this forum time and time agian. Better go and read for yourself.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]This topic is not to argue. I asked a specific question so please add your contribution and stick to the topic.[/quote]You are indeed a foolish person.


Yo asked for an example and I gave a clear example. Since the example clearly answers your topic question in a way that you do not like, you are now saying htat I am arguing off topic. Please, don piss me off



Atheists base their "morality" generally on 4 prinicples;

-practicality
-effectiveness
-logic
-balance of the greater good (pros and cons)



The abortion debate is a clear example of this in reality.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Thanks for the the brief education but can you give me an example of how it works in real life.[/quote]Abortion

Religious absolute morality
-Abortion is murder
-Only abort when the woman's life is in danger
-According to the bible, there is no exception for rape.
-Condoms breed immorality.


Secular subjective morality
-Abortion is not murder depending on your definition
-Abortion is okay as long as the woman has had counseling about her options and is in sound mind
-Abortion should be made more regulated when moving nearer to the 9 month period.
-Condoms and contraceptives can reduce abortion



Tell me why I should accept your religious absolute morality not based on common sense but the word of god?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]This is the exact reason why I say you have a very poor grasp at logic. If something by definition is uncaused, asking for it's cause is really quite silly.

Much like asking why are bachelors unmarried or demanding for a married bachelor.

If the universe were uncaused but has been existing eternally, then we wouldn't be arguing. But then since we know that it began to exist, we must ask it's cause until we come to a first uncaused cause that did not begin to exist.
If you insist that a first uncaused cause does not exist, then you must hold that infinite regress is your reality. You cannot have it both ways.[/quote]See this illogical fellow.


An uncaused cause is the same as a married bachelor. An uncaused cause does not exist neither does a married bachelor.


Please explain how cause and effect applies to a time before time and space? We escape the infinite regress by noting that time is needed to have a causal loop.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Can anyone spot the contradictions here? Which is it bro? It is either infinity exists or a first uncaused cause must exist.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that infinity does not exist and then also say that causation goes on infinitely.[/quote]Nice try to escape.

That is the point "cause and effect" when to comes to the beginning of the universe is not appropriate. Any cause of the of the universe, be it uncaused or not, would lead you to an infinite regress. What came before the caused (be it uncaused or not)?


The big bang? what came before it? God? what came before it?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.[/quote]Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

kai.....the frauds no dey end?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I know you did say in your analogy that the ends of the universe were unverifiable but then, If they were, then the whole concept of space wouldn't make sense and so would the notion of kicking a ball. There is a difference between something being unverifiable in itself and something that we are not able to verify because of our own limitations.



God is the uncreated one who created everything, if Pikkiwoki exists, God created it. If Pikkiwoki is not part of God's creation, then it does not exist.


What infinity problems?


Church was great by the way. You should try it sometime[/quote]Pikkiwoki is also uncreated. epic fail

[quote author=Mr_Anony]What a poor baby, I thought you had overgrown shouting "debunked!" after a bout of exposing your poor intelligence. Apparently, you haven't. . . . .God is not subject to time. God knows the end from the beginning. That bit is basic.

About freewill, I am not really interested in going into that with you, I have discussed freewill on a number of threads in this forum before. I just don't want to get into it with you today because I am really not in the mood to dumb down my arguments for you to even begin to understand them. I fear I will have more success describing the internet to an ant than getting you to follow a philosophical argument. (yes, your comprehension ability is that poor).

I am sure you will think of this as escapism, but then I really can't be bothered. Believe it or not, I am actually doing you a favor at this time.[/quote]Respects are due. I tip mat to your sir! 'your escapism knows no bounds!


You picked a very small part of my argument and then insulted my intelligence and then ran away with style feeling that you are superior.


You are quite mad. Read my comment and see if freewill is central to my argument.

Ihedinobi: Very poor response. God is defined as the uncaused cause or prime mover of motion. God is the explanation for existence. And we are not speaking of His Personality yet. We are just defining the concept. It is in defining His Personality that you produce candidates for examination to decide who is worthy to be God.

Having said so, your position is that God, by which I mean the concept defined above, cannot know the future. How does that make sense? If God is satisfactory explanation for all things, then He must necessarily comprehend time. This means that time does not encompass God, God encompasses time. In other words, for God, present, past and future are an open book.

The relationship between that and free will is most certainly not what you described. Put simply, knowing what will happen does not in any way necessitate making it happen. In a chess game, for instance, if I were a master, I would know that one move I make will open you my opponent up to a variety of choices and I would know that if you picked this choice, A would happen, if you picked that choice, B would happen. You are free, completely free to choose any of the two or more options. You are under no constraint from me, but I cannot be surprised by what you choose, especially if I know everything about you, and what will result from it.

1) Unfortunately, there are religious people who define god as only a force not a creator.

2) An uncaused cause is meaningless. A cause is always cause by another cause. An infinite regress. aradox of begining and time. What ever caused the universe to exist by nature is part of the universe but then, being part of a caused universe means that the original cause is caused. Try to compute that bro


3) God can not know the future, no matter how you define him. Try as much as you will but to know the future is to know something that doesnt exist. Impossible. The future is an infinite number of possiblities. Infinity doesnt exist.

Ihedinobi: It'll be enormous help if you indicate which one of the "over a billion definitions of God" you're using. That way, you can get on the same page with the people you're discussing with.

lol......there is no definition of god since god is what we want anyone wants him to be. Ironically we are the potters and he is the clay!


You should blast Anony for claiming that there is a definition of god. There is none, because whatever definition you give, there are over a billion contrasting ones with their own merit.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Of course infinity does not exist in your reality. Last I remember, your worldview was shown to be false. You still haven't given us the finite dimensions of your thought of roast beef by the way.[/quote]Epic fail.....nice try to switch the topic. There are things that can not be known eg the future in its entirety because it doesnt exist (yet) and may never exist.
Therefore, god can not know evrything or be omniscient. If God knows our future, then there is no freewill because it is already written, there is no temptation since the outcome is already written and there is no need for earth- god would know those are are doomed and those that are saved from the beginning.



thoughts are memory based. The limit of my thoughts on roast beef are the

a) my memory of roast beef
b) my knowledge of roast beef

I can not remember the smell of roast beef. Therefore, I can not think/reminisce about the smell of roast beef. I would be thinking about fried beef.


#Anony and Yaweh debunked by Logicboy!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]lol, here comes macdaddy: God is not a finite being like man. Go and learn what the definition of God is then comeback and talk.[/quote]There are over a billion definitions of God.


However, my argument has nothing do with god's infinity, it has to do with knowledge. One can not know the future, the future does not exist (yet)

One can also not know the full details of what precedes his origin.


Also, infinity does not exist in reality. God has to be finite to exist. Try again.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, wiegraf, wiegraf still having problems understanding are we?

Let us use your analogy shall we?

Now we know that the universe is not infinite, therefore it is theoretically possible to kick a ball to the end of the universe. Even if we do not have the tools to verify it, it is not an impossibility.
Next; We also know that there is a finite number of things in existence even if the number is so enormous that we cannot measure it, it is not infinite,
We also know that it is possible to know everything about something (especially if it is created by you). If this is true, then everything about all things can also be known, therefore knowledge is not infinite. Even if at the moment, we don't have the capacity to encompass all knowledge.

Now God by definition is the uncreated creator of everything. Therefore, it simply follows that God knows everything about everything. Nothing is outside God's creation.[/quote]I agree with every part of your comment part from the bold.


Unfortunately, there is a paradox in knowledge that makes some kind of knowledge impossible.


1) You cant know the future because the future is by definition impossible to know. It has not happened. You can claim to know what does not exist and which may never happen. Simple question does God know when Jesus is coming? no. Does God know when you are going to die? no.


2) It is impossible to know the full details of what precedes you. You can never know what Your mother smelled like when she was 4 years old. You werent there and it is difficult to describe a smell. Does god know what came before him? No

vedaxcool: Four words Acquired Immune Genetic Incompetence ( AIGI)

vedaxcool: What was that word DEEP Sight used? . . . Congenital stupid1ty, . . . I feel bad and "sorry" that you have to suffer pink unicornosis . . . Just get some rest and you would get well hahhahaha

Trolling again, Vedaxfool?


Post traumatic troll disorder

vedaxcool: I see a pink unicorn pain here

lol.....you are going full retardeen

no probs muskeeto!

k2039: [color=#FF0099] [size=13pt]do you really mean that
[/size][/color]

Yes.

pheyikemi: . I know, thk u. Honestly, u nid to change d way u ansa to pple's comment, i knw d world is smhw, bt dat doesnt mean u shdnt loosen up. I dnt knw u, bt ur write-ups say a lot abt u, u aint friendly, are u?. itz fun arguing in ds room of urs sha esp wt u - mr smart.

Okay, I'm sorry!

bankyblue: I no ur type, always looking for attention. because I don't no why u
Should pick on every body's comment. Repent or u die a sinner. In
Other not to rout in hell boy!

I'm not afraid of hell.

Doesnt exist.


Sorry

pheyikemi: . U sooo lyk pink Mr, i laff wen pple ask u if u r gay.

lmao x10!

Deep Sight: And a good argument it is too: for it discloses an important fact in their favour: namely that something permanent and eternal necessarily exists.

No, its a failed argument based on something that does not exist in reality- nothingness.

Deep Sight: I am tired of teaching you: NO theist says this. Theists speak of a permanent something that is eternal and has always existed. Please go and read up the fundamental distinctions between necessary and contingent elements: not to sound offensive, but you are sounding very ignorant of these precepts.

You fail again.

1) Atheists' stance is that there is no evidence for God. The theist counter that the evidence is the creation of the universe and that there is no way way that it can come from nothing. Their argument fails because we have no example for "nothing". Secondly, where does their god come from? They cant answer. Nonsense.


2) Eternity is an infinite. Infinites do not exist.

3) Where did this your pernanent something come from? It always existed?? Fairytales!

Deep Sight: Theists do not call space nothing. If anything, they generally refer to space as part of the creation of God. As such, Krauss, [IF this was his intention,] is still woefully wrong on that excuse.

Lies. Lies. They call it nothing.

I have never seen any holy book say that god created space.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."


Space being something is still a relatively new concept even to scientists, so stop lying.

Deep Sight: Might I add that he in fact set out to PROVE that something may emerge from NOTHING as a way to debunk the existence of God. That is exactly what he did. I will show you the quote in my next post.

The reason why this fails is the simple fact that the "nothing" he starts out from, as we have all agreed, is NOT nothing - it is something.

As such, you must agree with me that Krauss goofed.

Period.

Wow, you are being so shallow. A physicist like Krauss already knows that space is something. He is onyl using your arguments against you.

How hard is this to understand? Jeez!

Deep Sight: Or a square cube. The same thing. Point remains that as I said, just like a square cube, or a 7 ft midget, nothingness does not exist. You cannot ask me for examples of what I have already said DOES NOT exist, can you?

Seen

Deep Sight: Exactly: and since it does not exist and has no basis in reality, then Krauss cannot and should not speak of something from nothing!

Just shut up

Deep Sight: Not at all: I actually amuse myself with your congenital st.upidity.



I have no doubt that anyone who is bothered about your "swag" must be about 12 years old.

Why the beef? All I ever wanted was your approval of my epicness!

pheyikemi: Wonderful, anoda mystery - u mean thr's a door here?

metaphorically speaking.

bankyblue: I can see the way u re responding to everybody's comment. Mr smart and
No it all. U want to end up the way tai solarin did! I pity ur soul.
F**king anti-christ.

Does atheist = anti christ?


Or are you just saying things out of your azz?

Mistade Regal: Many of you will not understand but when this coming tribulation is over in the 1335th day you will know and understand that
*JESUS IS THE WAY TO SALVATION
*HEAVEN IS REAL
*HELL IS REAL
For now you can do whatever you like. Look at the sky like there is no tomorrow.
But the day is coming when you shall look up at the sky weep for your mistakes.

lol....when the christain dococtrine fails, threaten them with hell!

pheyikemi: . Hw was i to knw u r an unbeliever or dis is an unbeliever's grp? So ds is a blindman leadin a blindman talk. No wonder pple wt gud reasons didnt venture here. Now i undastnd nd i opt out of ur grp.

Huh?


Please, dont let the door add to your butthurt on the way out1